May 1, 2013 May Day: Should We All Become Marxists?

By Matthew Yglesias People take part in a march as part of the annual May Day workers' events on May 1, 2013 in Paris. Photo by MARTIN BUREAU/AFP/Getty Images In honor of May 1, Brad DeLong reposted a very interesting 2009 talk he delivere d on "Understanding Karl Marx" that offers a number of criticisms of Marx that I would have enthusiastically endorsed in 2009 but which look weaker four years l ater. In particular, DeLong says that Marx the political activist was too pessim istic about the idea that the ruling class would agree to make economic growth p areto optimal within the context of a market economy: [T]hat even though the ruling class could appease the working class by using the state to redistribute and share the fruits of economic growth it would never do so. They would be trapped by their own ideological legitimations--they really d o believe that it is in some sense unjust for a factor of production to earn more than its marginal product. Hence social democracy would inevitably collapse befo re an ideologically-based right-wing assault, income inequality would rise, and the system would collapse or be overthrown. The Wall Street Journal editorial pa ge works day and night 365 days a year to make Marx s prediction come true. But I think this, too, is wrong. To me that unquestionably looked wrong as of 2009. But in the interim, those Wal l Street Journal editorial page tendencies have grown much stronger. You see a r ising tide of Rand-inflected moralism about market outcomes and a reduced emphas is on Friedman-style pragmatism. You also see a sharply reduced emphasis on beli ef in any kind of macroeconomic stabilization policy, in favor of a "let them ea t cake slash move to North Dakota" moralism about unemployment. Last but by no m eans least, it really has become the conventional wisdom among American elites t hat the appropriate policy response to fiscal imbalance in a time of high and ri sing income inequality is to restore balance by reducing the scope and generosit y of social insurance programs. Second: Marx believed that capital is not a complement to but a substitute for labor. Th us technological progress and capital accumulation that raise average labor prod uctivity also lower the working-class wage. Hence the market system simply could not deliver a good or half-good society but only a combination of obscene luxur y and mass poverty. This is an empirical question. Marx's belief seems to me to be simply wrong. This is an empirical question and I continue to believe that Marx's belief is wr ong. But the fact is that profit margins are high and rising while wages are at best stagnating. My view is that this is a cyclical phenomenon that represents a failure of the technocratic apparatus of macroeconomic stabilization. But to me the striking political fact is that I hear more and more people disagreeing wit h me about this not only on the left but on the right. Marx's thought has its or igins in the classic economics of Smith and Ricardo, and the growing popularity of neo-Ricardian ideas ideas that take the form, no this isn't a massive policy fa ilure it just reflects the inevitable forces of technology/globalization on the po litical right ties in to the first point about the apparatus of ideological legi timation. In summary, I'm not a Marxist. But I worry that political conservatives are goin g to turn me into one. My view is that full employment and robust systems of red

istribution from the more fortunate to the less fortunate are possible. I see re al evidence for this in the world. The Obama administration has actually enacted a lot of redistribution programs, and the government of Australia has maintaine d consistent full employment policies for a long time now. But the collapse of t he Soviet Union, a good thing on its own terms, has had the bad consequence of b reeding massive complacency among the upper classes in the West. It used to seem important to people in the rich countries to prove that market economies not on ly could but in fact would lead to broadly rising living standards. But today we 're living in a 401(k) world.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/may_day_marxism_capitalism_is_loo king_pretty_shabby.html?wpisrc=most_viral